State of Sustainability Report: Reducing Energy Edition

The energy-reducing category includes all raw materials that enable energy savings in the production process. These materials allow, for example, lower process temperatures that result in lower energy needs and reduced emissions. 

This category is the second-least practised of the eight sustainability areas, with only 57% of respondents reporting that they currently use energy-reducing materials. Another 22% intend to introduce energy-reducing materials into their work in the next three years. A final 21% neither use such materials now nor have any plans to start. 

Some countries reported much higher adoption rates: 73% of Spanish respondents are already using energy-reducing materials, as are 69% of German respondents and 67% of those in the United States. In contrast, just 44% of Italian respondents report using energy-reducing materials at this time. 

More than half of survey respondents feel they have an intermediate understanding of the energy reduction category, with 20% calling themselves experts.

Energy reduction means energy savings—and that saves costs. While energy-reducing materials involve upfront investments, they also produce direct savings in terms of the energy needed for manufacturing and other processes. 

Energy savings and environmental impact play equal roles in driving this sustainability area forward, with 24% citing each as their primary driver in using energy-reducing materials. Customer/consumer demand (17%), competitive advantage (13%), and regulatory compliance (10%) are relevant but lesser contributors to the adoption of energy reduction programs. 

Competitive advantage, while not the primary driver of energy-reducing materials for most organisations, is seen as a value-add for over 40% of respondents. Here, it’s clear that these materials do play a large role in regulatory compliance as well, with 29% calling that a value-add. 

Pricing is by far the most challenging aspect of using energy-reducing materials. Forty-two percent of those currently using these solutions find budget to be a challenge, while just 20% each call functionality and availability their chief challenges. Regulations are the main difficulty for just 13%.  

The predominant barrier to incorporating energy-reducing materials is not knowing which materials to use. Thirty-eight percent of those who intend to add these materials within the next three years named this as a reason they have not done so yet. 

About a quarter of respondents feel there are no good alternatives for use in their industries, and the same amount say there is not a current customer/consumer demand. Issues with technical performance and high price points are lesser but relevant barriers, with 20% and 16% saying these stand in their way. 

Those who don’t yet use energy-reducing materials but want to implement them soon say the primary drivers will be customer/consumer demand (24%), energy savings (24%), and regulatory compliance (18%). 

“Many energy-reducing approaches require more than just a material switch, and can be quite complex,” says Adrian Garcia, Industrial Solutions Business Unit Manager, IMCD Spain. “To be successful, often the entire process, formulation, and equipment need to be adapted to meet the technical requirements.”

While energy cost savings drove energy reduction initiatives in both the Americas and EMEA, they were called the primary driver of adopting energy-reducing materials slightly more by respondents in the Americas (29% compared to 23%). In contrast, respondents in EMEA more often called environmental impact the chief driver (29% compared to 17%).  

Respondents in the Americas were also more likely to report choosing energy-reducing materials for competitive advantage than respondents in EMEA were (17% compared to 12%). Fifty percent of respondents in the Americas reported that competitive advantage was a value-add from energy-reduction materials, compared to just 36% in EMEA.

Pricing was the main difficulty in both regions, though called a primary challenge slightly more in EMEA than the Americas (44% compared to 35%). 

Challenges with functionality appear to be much more common in the Americas than EMEA. Thirty-one percent of respondents from the Americas called this the primary challenge of using energy-reducing materials, compared to just 15% of those from EMEA. 

Twenty-three percent of EMEA respondents called availability the chief issue of energy-reducing materials, compared to just 14% of respondents in the Americas. 

In both regions, at least a third of survey respondents who intend to introduce energy-reducing materials but have not yet done so say they don’t know which materials to use. In the Americas, 29% reported a lack of customer/consumer demand, while only 18% of EMEA respondents saw a similar issue. However, practitioners in EMEA shared larger concerns about these materials technical performance, with 29% citing this as a barrier to adopting energy-reducing materials, compared to just 6% in the Americas. 

The smallest businesses are the least likely to use energy-reducing materials today. Only half of respondents from businesses with fewer than 100 employees currently use these materials.  

Regulatory compliance was more likely to drive this decision at companies with 100 to 1,000 employees (15%) and more than 1,000 employees (12%) than at companies with fewer than 100 employees (5%). Employees from these small businesses were more likely to call technical performance the primary driver of using energy-reducing technologies, while no employees from businesses with more than 100 employees called technical performance the primary driver of using these materials.  

While pricing was the most-cited challenge of energy-reducing materials at companies of all sizes, employees at midsize companies were more than twice as likely to name availability as the main difficulty with these materials. Thirty-three percent of those from midsize businesses called this the primary challenge, compared to 15% of those at smaller companies and 12% of those at larger companies. 

The largest businesses appear better equipped to deal with regulatory complexities that come with energy-reducing materials: just 4% of employees from these businesses call regulations the primary challenge, compared to 15% of those from small and midsize businesses. 

Though just 6% of survey respondents predict that energy reduction will be the most impactful sustainability priority of the next few years, lower energy usage is undeniably important. 

From a purely economic perspective, energy reduction remains vital. Energy costs spiked in the last year, challenging the chemical industry across Europe. Reducing energy requirements is one way manufacturers can future-proof their supply chains. 

Of course, many of these sustainability areas are deeply intertwined. When energy use is reduced, so are carbon emissions. Ultimately, progress toward one sustainability goal can also make an impact on others.